Telangana High Court
Nanumasa Veera Bhaskar, vs The State Of Telangana, on 2 August, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8489 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the
notice, vide C.No.140/Cr/CI-NKD/2024, dated 27.06.2024
issued by respondent No.2-Circle Inspector of Police, Nekkonda,
Warangal District to the petitioners in Crime No.140 of 2024 in
Chennaraopet Police Station, Warangal District.
2. Heard Sri A Rupadevi, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent
Nos.1 and 2 - State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners being the accused, the Police cannot serve notice
under Section 91 Cr.P.C on them. He further submitted that
respondent No.2 has no power to direct the petitioners to
produce the incriminating material in their possession under
Section 91 Cr.P.C. Therefore, prayed the Court to set aside the
impugned notice issued by respondent No.2, vide
C.No.140/Cr/CI-NKD/2024, dated 27.06.2024.
SKS,J
4. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in Kubhum
Anand Reddy vs. The State of Telangana 1 , wherein in
paragraph No.12, it is held as under:
"12. In the present case also, admittedly,
petitioner herein is accused No.1 in the aforesaid
crime. Respondent No.1 has issued notice 29.03.2021
under Section - 91 Cr.P.C. directing petitioner herein
to produce relevant documents mentioned in the
above. Therefore, respondent No.1 is not having
power under Section - 91 of Cr.P.C. to direct the
petitioner to produce a particular document which is
incriminatory against him. Therefore, the action of
respondent No.1 in directing the petitioner herein to
produce the aforesaid documents is contrary to the
procedure laid down under Section - 91 of Cr.P,.C.
also the principle laid down by the High Court in the
aforesaid decision and in violation of Article - 20 (3) of
the Constitution of India."
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioners and prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal
petition.
6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned
counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it
appears that the criminal petition is filed challenging the notice
Crl.P.no.3023 of 2021 decided on19.04.2021
SKS,J
issued by respondent No.2, vide C.No.140/Cr/CI-NKD/2024,
dated 27.06.2024, under Section 91 Cr.P.C. However, it is
specifically contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that petitioners being the accused, the Police cannot serve
notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C.
7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in A. Srinivas Reddy vs. State of
Telangana 2, wherein in paragraph No.9, it is held as under:
"9. In view of the above authoritative
pronouncements, coming to the facts of the case on
hand, admittedly, the petitioner herein is accused
No.1 in Crime No.146 of 2020, registered for the
offences under Sections -403, 406 and 420 of IPC.
Respondent No.4 - Investigating Officer directed the
petitioner herein to produce the aforesaid information
from him vide impugned notice under Section 91 of
Cr.P.C. The said information/documents sought by
the Investigating Officer is from the possession of
petitioner - accused No.1 and the same is
incriminating material which is Investigating Officer
cannot call for the petitioner - accused No.1 under
Section 91 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the impugned notice
is illegal and the action of respondent No.4 in called
for the said information, which is incriminating
material, from the possession of accused No.1 under
Section 91 of Cr.P.C. is illegal, violative of the
principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments and
against the protection guaranteed under Article - 20
2021 SCC OnLine TS 1406
SKS,J
(3) of the Constitution of India. Further, respondent
No.4 has no power to direct the petitioner - accused
No.1 to produce the incriminating material from his
possession."
8. In view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
A. Srinivas Reddy (supra 2) and this Court in Kubhum Anand
Reddy (supra 1), respondent No.2 has no power to issue the
impugned notice to the petitioners under Section - 91 Cr.P.C. to
furnish incriminating material and therefore, the impugned
notice is liable to be quashed.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed setting aside
the impugned notice issued by respondent No.2, vide
C.No.140/Cr/CI-NKD/2024, dated 27.06.2024.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 02.08.2024
SAI
